V 2.. Srf Ready"
" "Bangalore-5 1.
W.P.NO.6025/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MARCH 2010
BEFORE ' V 1%" A
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTECE K. BHAKTi*IA.-
WRIT PETITION No.6o25/21;) 10»[(}lM--'CPC:}.' " 'V
BETWEEN: ' 1'
Sri. Muniraju
S/o Muniswamappa
Aged about 50 years
R/O Ilothre Village
Kundana Hobli
Hegganahalli * V
DevaJ:1aha11iTaluk u
Bangalore Rura1.ois:r;:::V_._--_'_ ~ if; , ...PE'I'I'1'IONER
{By sr:.s.P.she.n1§¢;1r_;'" c§u;isé1'
for SI?'_S AssfsV;';V_.AElV*sV.) --
AND:
1.
Smt Thippafnma Rétthfiamma
D/Muniswamappa V
, , Agad about 48 yeaV1’S””‘
._ . R,/.0 No.23?-,.f<*ajiV Gandhi Colony
'Q1_1ée.t1s«.1foa€i;o_Sl;ivajinagar Post
' ~BEI}galOr€v~.5 lg ' ' 'V
S/o lfiodda Thippamma
" Agod about 30 years
R/ogNo.2'7
Rajiv Gandhi Colony
Queens Road, Shivajinagar Post
W.P.NO.6025/2010
3. Sri.Muninarayanappa
S/o Muniswarnappa
Aged about 55 years
R/o Illthore Village
Kundana Hobli
Hegganahalli
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District.
4. Sri. Munegowcla
S / 0 Late Munivenkatappa
29 years
R/ o Rajiv Gandhi Colony _
Queens Road, Shivajinffi-gar Pest . .
Bangalore560 051. ‘~ 5 j ~ ..,_.v..i_2’1€2sPoNDEN’rs
This Writ Petji.tior};”is filed under !~\1ftiole’.-‘$0226 and 227 of the
Constitution of Indi-a_;..prajiing”-te._quash”the, order dated 6.01.2010
on I.A.II O.S.No.83T»,/2006 on fiie. file or Civil Judge (Sr. Dn} at
Devanahalli,.«/ides TAnne5éare~:3.>and to” reject the plaint by allowing
LA. No.H. –. –
This Petition’ for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court rIiade.the.foll.ow;in’g:–
TiieuVpetitioiieifzflefendant No.4 in o.s.No.837/2006 on the
0 .,/,,,..4«ii1e of (Sr. Dn.} at Devanahalli, is before this Court
_._l.l’_j’:pr.ay1’ng for” ouashing the order dated 08.01.2010 passed on
above said suit at Annexure ‘B’.
Le
W.P.NO.6025/2010
dated 15.02.2002 and therefore, the suit is not maintainabl-e_. The
application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Trial Ctourt}.gafter
hearing arguments, passed the impugned order lrejectingugji;:.?5L;’l’Eo’LItH
filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. it ‘
petition.
3. Sri.S.P.Shankar. learned seii.io1’» cousnel appiearingllfor the
petitioner submits that the Rtesponpdentstig 2/plaintiffs are not
entitled for share in the suit Plaintiff No. 1
got married prior l\lo.2’s mother got
married prior to’ there was a family
partition unae-1-» aT;r.egis:t}€:1’ed”jldeedt of'”partition dated 15.02.2002.
Therefore, tltg rejected under Order Vll Rule
11 of CPC, but theTriai in rejecting the application. It
isalso Court, by order dated 22.07.2006,
rejegcteldvorder passed on I.A.II was challenged in Writ
Learned single Judge of this Court by
order dated set aside the order dated 27.07.2006
on_ I.A.No.II and directed the Trial Court to re–consider the
‘–.g_u1n.atte”r. and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Thus, the
V _ ll’i’ri:ai”C’ourt has disposed of LA. No.11 afresh by the impugned order.
L
W.P.NO.6025/2010
4. No doubt the Defendants 1 to 4» have taken a stand by
filing written statement that Piaintifi” No.1’s mar:iage”p:’–tp:Was
performed in 1978 and Plaintiff No.2’s mother’s
performed prior to 1965 and therefore, piaintiffs ‘entitI:edVi’tO if ‘
seek for partition with reference to the fschediule
Mere contention taken by the Defendants 4_VthVat”:t_:h’e Piaintiff V L’
No.1 married in 1978 and PAV1aintiffApN.oV;2v’s “rnother”‘m.arrfied prior to
1965 are not conclusive. -At..the the basis of the
contention taken in tile Written” :’Trial Court has to
frame issues and ifejquired to fdeciicfifefwf the same. No good
ground is madev p”eti’::ioner”toerltertain the petition.
5. In the result.,_fthe- fails and the same is hereby
rejected. –.
ee r ea/~ jooeg bnv*